A WATERSIDE STRIKE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1439, 14 May 1912, Page 3

A WATERSIDE STRIKE.

AUCKLAND UNION PROSECUTED. (By Telegraph—Press Association.; Auckland, May 13. The circumstances of the alleged strike which held up the steamer Pnparoa last November were the subject of a case this morning before the Arbitration Court (Mr. Justice Sim and Messrs. Scott and M'Cuiloiigh) when the Inspector of Awards sued the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union for the sum of .£2OO penalty for an alleged breach of .Section G of the Industrial Arbitration and Conciliation Act Amendment Act by inciting and abetting a strike. Mr. S'ohvvn Mays appeared for the Department and Mr. It. F. Way for tho union. Mr. Mays explained that the circumstances out of which the case arose happened in November of last year when the steamer Pnparoo. was being discharged by Messrs. Xoaring and Co. The men were engaged on the llth of that month, and on the IStK' the secretary of the union !Mr. C'ollett) wrote to tho stevedores saving that the men refused to work pebbles used in goldmining batteries under Is. (id. an hour. Matters went, along till March 20 when the secretary of the union wrote complaining about, the state of the superphosphates being unloaded, and again demanding Is. Gd. per hour. The men refused to work and the stevedores had no option but to comply, as they could nut hang the ship up, and tho secretary of the union then smd to th* men: "Veil, boys, you can now go back to work." Counsel said he understood that two questions would be raised for the defence. Ihe first was that nothing that the union or its officials had done amounted to aiding or abetting a strike. Mr. Mays referred to an English case where it was held that a union was responsible, tor the acts of its officials. Counsel went on to say that he understood the defence would rely on the judgment of the Court in_ tho case, Inspector of Awards v. C. Woods, where it was held that the duty of a wharf labourer to begin work arose, not from anything in the award but on a contract between the parties, and a refusal was not a breach of t.he Act, but the subject oi a claim for damages. The cases were, however, quite distinct. Evidence was then heard, in the course of which J. Collett, secretary of the union, stated that the condition of the superphosphates was very bad and that tho contention was that work on them should be paid for at buik rates instead of at bag rates. Mr. Way contended that there was no ca-e to answer. There had not been a tittle of evidence to show that the union had done anything to incite or abet a strike. The only evidence was the meeting of March 21 which was called in an irregular manner, Mr. Collett taking upon himself to call together the men who were concerned in the working of the disputed cargo, and the bulk of the union members knew absolutely nothing about the matter. The action of two or three members could not be held to involve the union as a body. There was no cvidenco that the union knew anything about the matter or endorsed the action in any way. The meeting was not called in accordance with the rules.

His Honour: "According to the evidence of Mr. Collett it was not a meeting of the union at all. but of people concerned in the dispute." His Honour said the Court would take time to consider its decision. They were satisfied that there had been a strike, but tho question was whether the union could he connected with it.